I think I still don't understand something here. My concern right now is that query times are very slow for 120GB index (14s on avg), I've seen a lot of disk activity when running queries.
I'm hoping that distributing that query across 2 servers is going to improve the query time, specifically I'm hoping that we can distribute that disk activity because we don't have great disks on there (yet). So, with disk IO being a factor in mind, running the query on one box, vs. across 2 *should* be a concern right? Admittedly, this is the first step in what will probably be many to try to work our query times down from 14s to what I want to be around 1s. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Potter [mailto:thelabd...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:16 PM To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org Subject: Re: SolrCloud loadbalancing, replication, and failover Hi Dave, This sounds more like a budget / deployment issue vs. anything architectural. You want 2 shards with replication so you either need sufficient capacity on each of your 2 servers to host 2 Solr instances or you need 4 servers. You need to avoid starving Solr of necessary RAM, disk performance, and CPU regardless of how you lay out the cluster otherwise performance will suffer. My guess is if each Solr had sufficient resources, you wouldn't actually notice much difference in query performance. Tim On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:03 AM, David Parks <davidpark...@yahoo.com> wrote: > But my concern is this, when we have just 2 servers: > - I want 1 to be able to take over in case the other fails, as you > point out. > - But when *both* servers are up I don't want the SolrCloud load > balancer to have Shard1 and Replica2 do the work (as they would both > reside on the same physical server). > > Does that make sense? I want *both* server1 & server2 sharing the > processing of every request, *and* I want the failover capability. > > I'm probably missing some bit of logic here, but I want to be sure I > understand the architecture. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Otis Gospodnetic [mailto:otis.gospodne...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 8:13 PM > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: SolrCloud loadbalancing, replication, and failover > > Correct. This is what you want if server 2 goes down. > > Otis > Solr & ElasticSearch Support > http://sematext.com/ > On Apr 18, 2013 3:11 AM, "David Parks" <davidpark...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Step 1: distribute processing > > > > We have 2 servers in which we'll run 2 SolrCloud instances on. > > > > We'll define 2 shards so that both servers are busy for each request > > (improving response time of the request). > > > > > > > > Step 2: Failover > > > > We would now like to ensure that if either of the servers goes down > > (we're very unlucky with disks), that the other will be able to take > > over automatically. > > > > So we define 2 shards with a replication factor of 2. > > > > > > > > So we have: > > > > . Server 1: Shard 1, Replica 2 > > > > . Server 2: Shard 2, Replica 1 > > > > > > > > Question: > > > > But in SolrCloud, replicas are active right? So isn't it now > > possible that the load balancer will have Server 1 process *both* > > parts of a request, after all, it has both shards due to the replication, right? > > > > > >